Why do consumers negatively evaluate green advertising?

Samer Elhajjar

Assistant Professor

University of Balamand, Lebanon

E-mail: samer.hajjar@balamand.edu.lb

Sihem Dekhili

Professor

HuManiS (EA 7308), Humans and Management in Society, École de Management

Strasbourg -Université de Strasbourg, France

E-mail: sihem.dekhili@unistra.fr

Why do consumers negatively evaluate green advertising?

Abstract:

This research seeks to examine the effect of the elements of advertising on the evaluation of

environmental advertising and on the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. While the

research done so far focus on the study of the effect of the content or the form of advertising, this

paper underlines the effects of all elements of advertising. The results of the between-subjects

experimental study (N=520) show that consumers are more positively evaluating environmental

advertisements with no green color and no children as a character. They also emphasize that

exaggeration in advertising and ambiguous visuals have negative effects on the evaluation of

environmental advertising and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. The results

also indicate that low-environmental advertising mediums influence negatively the evaluation of

environmental advertising and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. In addition,

this study shows that the evaluation and ecological perceptions of consumers are more positive

when the source corresponds to non-governmental organizations than when it corresponds to a

business.

Keywords: Green Advertising; Green Marketing; Sustainable Development; Brand’s Ecological

Image.

Introduction

Green advertising has boomed in recent years (Delmas and Burbano, 2011). This increase is

mainly due to the growth of the environmental concern of consumers. Green advertising was

initially integrated as a marketing communication strategy by large industry firms which are often

accused as responsible for environmental degradation. These companies mainly launch green

advertising in order to develop positive attitudes toward eco-friendly products and to improve the

socially responsible corporate image of firms (Banerjee et al., 1995; D’Souza and Taghian, 2005;

Pranee, 2010). Previous studies focused on one element of environmental advertising to examine

its effect: the form of the advertising (e.g. Benoit-Moreau et al., 2009) or the message (e.g.

Carlson et al., 1993; Monot and Renniou, 2013). But, there are still some elements not studied in

the literature. According to the literature (Burton and Lichtenstein, 1988; Wells, 1997), the

evaluation and the perception of an advertisement must focus on its entirety, not on elements

taken separately. Thus, this research aims to analyze the impact of all the elements of

environmental advertising on the evaluation of advertising and the perception of the advertiser’s

ecological image. In fact, the advertising’s channel that takes into account the various means of

communication that the advertiser uses to promote a product is an important element in the study

of advertising (Tochtermann and Schmutz, 2003). In the particular case of environmental

advertising, the channel must be adequate with the advertising message so that advertising is

perceived responsibly by individuals (Audoin et al., 2010). The impact of advertising’s channel

on the evaluation and perception of environmental advertising has been ignored in the literature

(Audoin et al., 2010). In addition, several academic articles have studied the cognitive evaluation

of environmental advertising (Benoit-Moreau et al., 2009; Herault, 2012; Bailey et al., 2014), and

much less examined the emotional dimension related to the evaluation of environmental

advertising. In our research, we study both dimensions of evaluation: the cognitive and the

emotional.

Moreover, we decided to measure the ecological perception of a brand or a product which is a

decisive variable of the intention of the consumer’s behavior (D’Souza and Taghian, 2005). For

Benoit-Moreau and his colleagues (2009), the elements of environmental advertising should have

an impact on the perceptions of the promoted ecological product. In view of these shortcomings

in the literature, it appears necessary to contribute to the green advertising literature and to

examine: 1) the impact of the elements of advertising (content, form, channel, and source) on the

cognitive and emotional evaluation of environmental advertising; 2) the impact of the elements of

advertising on the advertiser’s ecological image.

Specifically, the first section of this paper will be devoted to the literature review on green

advertising and research hypotheses. The second part details the design of the experimental plan

chosen, the experimental protocol and the pre-test for the experimental manipulations. Finally,

the third part is devoted to the results of the experiment.

1. Theoretical framework

1.1.Signaling theory approach to green advertising

Signaling theory is basically derived from the economics literature and has been widely used in

marketing research to study brand equity (Erdem and Swait, 1998) and product pricing

(Srivastava and Lurie, 2004). Researchers have also applied this theory to the field of advertising

(Kirmani, 1997; Thomas et al., 1998; Anand and Shachar, 2009). Actually, signaling theory is

useful for describing the behavior of two parties: the sender and the receiver. The sender chooses

whether and how to communicate information and the receiver decides on how to interpret the

signal (Connelly et al., 2011).

Brands seek to send signals of compliance to their consumers in order to maintain or strengthen

their reputation (Suchman, 1995). Thus, many companies invest considerable sums in activities

that help to preserve the environment (Peattie and Crane, 2005). Environmental advertising is

considered as a signal that a brand’s behavior is socially acceptable and appropriate (Philppe and

Durand, 2009). In fact, the organization’s environmental performance is difficult to observe

directly. Stakeholders can try to assess the quality of a firm’s environmental management through

its green communication. Findings from prior research suggest that if signals are consistent with

expectations and are perceived positively by the receivers, they will improve the firm’s

ecological image (Heil and Robertson, 1991; Philippe and Durand, 2009) while, in contrast,

negative reactions towards signals can damage the brand’s image (Philippe and Durand, 2009).

Heil and Robertson (1991) argue that signal interpretation and consumer reactions are determined

by the signal’s characteristics (form and message).

Green marketing initiatives are considered as a signal of a brand’s environmental commitment.

Actually, green marketing is the marketing of environmentally friendly products and services and

includes a wide range of activities related to:product design, the manufacturing process, and

recycling (Prakash, 2002). And while green marketing may take many forms, an important facet

of an organization is its green advertising. Green advertising is a way to promote awareness of

environmental products and stimulate demand for them. According to Banerjee et al. (1995),

green advertising can be seen as any advertisement that may explicitly or implicitly address the

relationship between a product and the biophysical environment. It should also have

thecharacteristics of being able to promote a green lifestyle with or without highlighting a

product in order to present a corporate image of environmental responsibility (Banerjee et al.,

1995). Zinkhan and Carlson (1995) have elaborated another definition for green advertising and

consider it as the appeals that try to fulfill consumers’ needs and aspiration regarding

environmental concern and health issues from different perspectives including ecology,

sustainability, and pollution-free messages. However, a negative attitude towards green

advertising among consumers has accompanied its evolution. Green advertising has been

criticized as nothing more than a marketing strategy that fails to convey any real environmental

benefits of an organization (Chan, 2004), and does not guarantee a green image underpinned by

honesty and trust (Peattie and Crane, 2005). At present, the main problems confront green

advertising are: poor credibility, consumer skepticism and consumer confusion (Winn and

Angell, 2000). Based on previous studies, we attempt below to explain the variables that

negatively impact the evaluation of green advertisement and the advertiser’s ecological image.

2. Hypotheses

Color in advertisements was considered to be an important explanatory variable of consumer

behavior in the field of advertising (Lichtlé, 2002), packaging (Roullet and Droulers, 2005), or

point-of-sale design (Pantin-Sohier et Brée, 2004). Lichtlé (1998) showed the influence of color

in advertisements on consumer perceptions. In the ecological field, the use of green color has a

negative impact on the perception of the ecological product (Benoit-Moreau et al., 2009; 2010).

The advertisements that used the green color are perceived by consumers as more manipulative;

they degrade the ecological image and the perceived quality of the promoted product (Benoit-

Moreau et al., 2009; 2010).

From the above, we suggest that the green color has a negative impact on the consumer’s

evaluation of environmental advertising and perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. We,

therefore, propose to test the following hypotheses:

H1: Green color in environmental advertisements negatively influences the evaluation of

environmental advertising.

H2: Green color in environmental advertisements negatively influences the perception of the

advertiser’s ecological image.

Several environmental advertisements not intended for family consumption have used the child

as a character (ex. Total, EDF, Areva, etc.). Scholars have studied the attitudes of children

towards advertising (Kapeferer, 1985; Derbaix, 1982; Bruck et al., 1998; Pecheux et Derbaix,

1999; Guichard et Gregory, 2000). Bruck et al. (1998) showed that children positively perceive

advertisements that use children as a character. Plus, no research has studied the effect of using

children in advertisements on perceptions of older consumers. According to the literature

(Holbrook and Lehman, 1980; Stewart and Furse, 1986; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), the

characters in advertising have an effect on the effectiveness of advertising.

From the above, we suggest that the use of children as a character in environmental

advertisements has a negative impact on the consumer’s evaluation of environmental advertising

and perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.We, therefore, propose to test the following

hypotheses:

H3: The use of children as a character in environmental advertisements negatively influences the

evaluation of environmental advertising.

H4: The use of children as a character in environmental advertisements negatively influences the

perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.

The elements of advertisement’s form such as the images mobilized have an effect on the

perceptions of the brand. According to Monot and Renniou (2013), in order for environmental

advertisements to be viewed positively by consumers, the images used must illustrate the

commercial discourse and not present any ambiguity. For Benoit-Moreau et al. (2009, 2010), the

visual elements of the advertisement must be used in a proportional way to the responsible

arguments in order to avoid greenwashing. For example, the use of natural elements could

mislead the consumer and make it more doubtful about the environmental impact of the products.

From the above, we suggest that the non-coherent images with the message of environmental

advertising have a negative impact on the consumer’s evaluation of environmental advertising

and perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. We, therefore, propose to test the following

hypotheses:

H5: Non-coherent images with the message of environmental advertising negatively influence

the evaluation of environmental advertising.

H6: Non-coherent images with the message of environmental advertising negatively influence

the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.

Haefner (1956) is the first researcher to have worked on the concept of guilt, and more precisely

on his place in advertisements. In particular, he questioned changes of opinion after a

mobilization of guilt in an advertisement and proposed the first scale of measurement of guilt.

His work highlighted significant changes in the respondents’ opinion following the presentation

of a guilty advertisement. In the context of environmental advertising, Jimenez (2008) has shown

that the guilty speech has a negative impact on the attitudes towards advertising and the brand.

According to Monot and Renniou (2013), individuals reject the discourse of guilt as a type of

message that overestimates their role in protecting the environment. For Chang (2015), guilt

messages could negatively affect the perception of the ecological product presented in the

advertisement, as well as the evaluation of the advertisement.

From the foregoing, we suggest that the advertising discourse of guilt could have a negative

impact on the consumer’s evaluation of environmental advertising and perception of the

advertiser’s ecological image. We, therefore, propose to test the following hypotheses:

H7: The guilt in advertising discourse negatively influences the evaluation of environmental

advertising.

H8: The guilt in advertising discourse negatively influences the perception of the advertiser’s

ecological image.

Several studies have shown the negative reactions of consumers in the face of exaggerated

advertising discourse (Wattenberg and Brians, 1999; Yingfang, 2007; Sanz and Luengo, 2012).

For these researchers, advertisers often use an advertising discourse that exaggerates the benefits

of a product or service. In the ecological field, Furlow (2010) says that several companies tend to

exaggerate the environmental aspects of their approaches and to highlight qualities that are not

really relevant. According to the literature (Chan, 2004; Monot and Reniou, 2013), some

companies claim to be in favor of environmental protection while in fact, they are not. Ecological

discourses are perceived by individuals as manipulators as they are part of a market logic

supported by marketing and commercial techniques (Peñaloza and Price, 1993). Also, scholars

explain that a negative evaluation of environmental advertising may be a result of some

companies that do not hesitate to disseminate exaggerated environmental communication

(Carlson et al., 1993; Delmas and Burbano, 2011; Leonidou et al., 2011).

From the foregoing, we suggest that exaggerated advertising discourse has a negative impact on

the evaluation and perception of advertising.

H9: Exaggeration in advertising discourse negatively influences the evaluation of environmental

advertising.

H10: Exaggeration in advertising discourse negatively influences the perception of the

advertiser’s ecological image.

The literature highlights the advertising’s channel as a component of the communication process

(Moser and Reed, 1998). According to Tochtermann and Schmutz (2003), the effect of

advertising communication depends on the medium used by the advertiser. An advertisement that

has a positive effect, it must send a good message through appropriate media (Tochtermann and

Schmutz, 2003). In addition, the conclusions of studies carried out by Ademe (2007) and Poivre-

Le lohé (2015) stressed the importance of integrating the environmental concerns into the design

and implementation of communication actions. Some researchers have suggested that

environmental advertising’s channel must be consistent with the content of the message so that

advertising is perceived responsibly and that its impact is strengthened (Chauveau and Rosé,

2003; Bernard, 2008).

From the above, we suggest that advertising’ channel has an impact on the consumer’s evaluation

of environmental advertising and perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. We, therefore,

propose to test the following hypotheses:

H11: A non-ecological communication channel negatively influences the evaluation of

environmental advertising.

H12: A non-ecological communication media negatively influences the perception of the

advertiser’s ecological image.

The source credibility models developed by Hovland and Weiss (1951) and Hovland et al. (1974)

demonstrated that the effectiveness of an advertising message depends on the source. According

to the literature (Banerjee et al., 1995; Delmas and Burbano, 2011), individuals perceive in a

more positive way the environmental advertisements issued by non-governmental organizations

than those issued by companies. The environmental advertisements of non-governmental

organizations mobilize an emotional discourse aimed at changing the ecological behavior of the

consumer and educating citizens about ecological issues (Ladwein, 1999). Whereas, companies

prefer to promote the benefits of a product rather than to present environmental issues (Belkin,

2004). According to the literature, the most credible sources produce more attitudinal changes

than less credible sources (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Also, the literature highlights that non-profit

organizations have a better ecological image than businesses (Banerjee et al., 1995; Delmas and

Burbano, 2011).

From the foregoing, we suggest that the source of advertising has an impact on the consumer’s

evaluation of environmental advertising and perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.

H13: Environmental advertisements launched by non-governmental organizations are evaluated

in a more positive way than those launched by companies.

H14: The ecological image of non-governmental organizations is perceived more favorably than

that of companies.

According to the literature, there are some important moderator variables on the study of the

environmental advertising. For example, the consumer’s environmental concern was widely

studied in marketing literature, based on the works of Kassarjian (1971), Kinnear and Taylor

(1973), Kinnear et al. (1974) and Henion (1976). Kinnear and his colleagues (1974) define the

consumer concerned about ecology as an individual to adopt a purchasing and consumption

behavior consistent with the conservation of ecosystems. Zaiem (2005) proposed a definition of

environmental concern with three dimensions: knowledge of environmental issues, sensitivity to

environmental issues and behavior towards the environment. Zaiem (2005) was able to verify the

existence of a significant link between the knowledge gained in the field of sustainable

development, sensitivity, and ecological behavior. Maresca and Hebel (1999) and Sylvander

(2000) have shown that environmental concerns vary according to the consumer’s environmental

beliefs. The results of other research point out that the less-concerned consumers of the

environment turn out to be those that are generally the least dubious of environmental advertising

messages (Mars and Menivelle, 2012; Do Paço and Reis, 2012). To test the moderating effect of

the environmental concern we suggest the following hypotheses:

H15: The environmental concern of the consumer has a moderating effect on the relationship

between the elements of advertising and the evaluation of environmental advertising.

H16: The environmental concern of the consumer has a moderating effect on the relationship

between the elements of advertising and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.

Also, according to the literature, the age of the individual has a significant impact on the attitude

towards advertising (Shavitt et al., 1998). Generally speaking, younger respondents tend to have

a more positive attitude than the older ones. Younger people feel less embarrassed and less

targeted by advertisements (Shavitt et al., 1998). In this sense, Alwitt and Prabhakar (1992) have

shown that older individuals have a more negative attitude towards advertising than young

people. Previous research (Diamantopoulos, 2003; Bereni, 2004) indicate that age is an important

variable to consider in research on environmental advertising because young and old consumers

may have different perceptions and attitudes regarding environmental protection and actions to

undertake natural resources. To test the moderating effect of the age, we suggest the following

hypotheses:

H17: Age has a moderating effect on the relationship between the elements of advertising and the

evaluation of environmental advertising.

H18: Age has a moderating effect on the relationship between the elements of advertising and the

perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.

Several research focused on the gender of consumers as a moderator of the effect of

advertisements (Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991). According to Meyers-Levy and

Maheswaran (1991), men and women differ in their reactions toward advertising. On an

ecological level, according to a survey conducted by Harris Agency (2014), women appear to be

more motivated, concerned and committed than men to the environment. For Bereni (2004),

women are more concerned about ecological issues and more receptive to environmental

consumption than men. Sheelan and Atkinson (2016) have shown that women’s and men’s

attitudes towards environmental advertising are different. Indeed, women perceive environmental

advertising in a more positive way than men (Haytko and Maltulich 2008). To test the

moderating effect of the gender, we suggest the following hypotheses:

H19: Gender has a moderating effect on the relationship between the elements of advertising and

the evaluation of environmental advertising.

H20: The gender has a moderating effect on the relationship between the elements of advertising

and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.

The resistance to advertising had a particular interest in previous research (Roux, 2006; Cottet et

al., 2009) showing that advertising-resistant individuals reject any advertisement. The resistance

behaviors of these individuals can go as far as a complete rejection of the brands, the market and

the consumer system (Hermann, 1993; Ritson and Dobscha, 1999). According to Roux (2007),

resistance to advertising has two components: a negative attitude towards advertising and

behavior adopted with the aim of limiting the effect of advertising. The resistance could have a

moderating effect on the relationship between the advertising and the reactions of individuals to it

because resistance is usually at the origin of the change of attitude and encompasses mechanisms

allowing individuals to protect themselves from advertising messages (Briñol et al., 2004). To

test the moderating effect of resistance to advertising, we suggest the following hypotheses:

H21: Resistance to advertising has a moderating effect on the relationship between the elements

of advertising and the evaluation of environmental advertising.

H22: Resistance to advertising has a moderating effect on the relationship between the elements

of advertising and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image.

Figure 1 illustrates the hypotheses and presents the research model.

Figure 1: The research Model

3. Research methodology

The proposed hypotheses are mainly part of a causal approach. Causal-type research is used to

study cause-and-effect relationships between variables affecting a situation (Churchill and

Lacobuccci, 2006). The implementation of a causal approach uses an experimental method

(Churchill and Lacobuccci, 2006). To test the assumptions about the impact of the elements of

environmental advertising, we, therefore, chose an experimental approach. The experiment will

lead us to manipulate several explanatory variables (green color, child as a character, ambiguous

image, guilty discourse, exaggerated discourse, communication medium and source of

advertising) in order to understand the effect of these elements on the evaluation of advertising

and on the advertiser’s ecological image. We decided to manipulate the independent variables at

two levels: present treatment and absent treatment. According to Gavard-Perret et al. (2012), the

most useful and simple manipulation in experimentation is where the explanatory variable has

only two levels: present/absent treatment. The subjects exposed to the experimental treatment

represent the test group and the subjects not exposed to this treatment make up the control group

(Churchill and Lacobuccci, 2006).

We handle in the case of this study 7 variables to two modalities each. Thus the experiment has 7

(independent variables) * 2 (experimental conditions) = 14 experimental conditions. In order to

avoid the fatigue and boredom effect of being exposed to this high number of experimental

conditions, we decided to submit each subject group to an experimental condition. In this way,

respondents were randomly assigned to one of the fourteen experimental conditions. Thus, the

experimental design chosen in this study is between-subject.

The 14 versions correspond to the manipulation of the 7 elements studied each in the form of two

modalities:

• Without/with the domination of the green color.

• Without/with the child as a character in the advertisement.

• Without/with the image without concordance with the speech.

• Without/with guilt in the speech.

• Without/with exaggeration in the speech.

• Ecological support/non-ecological support.

• Advertising launched by a non-governmental organization (NGO) versus advertising issued

by a company.

The implementation of the experimental plan requires the development of advertising stimuli. We

decided to create a relatively simple advertisement to limit the halo effect (Boyer et al., 2006;

Wells, 1964). The performance characteristics (e.g. the size of the images, the colors and the

structure of the pages) are also controlled from one stimulus to another and therefore cannot be

inferred from any differences (Pieters et al., 2007).

We observed about 100 environmental advertisements to analyze how they were designed. These

advertisements have been identified on specialized websites of advertising archive. The ads

chosen promote different products and services (agriculture, industry, energy, etc.) The objective

of this analysis is twofold; to have on the one hand an idea of the message on which the

environmental communication is to be used and to identify on the other hand the advantages that

allow an advertiser to position itself as a brand responsible. Also, the use of a common consumer

commodity that is likely to interest a broad audience is the car. Indeed, most car manufacturers

have integrated environmental issues into their communication. Familiarity with the brand

facilitates the encoding and restitution of information (Grunert, 1996). But in order to invite

respondents to judge advertising on the basis of the elements of advertising and to avoid any

effect of knowledge or familiarity with the brand (Anderson and Jolson, 1980), we used a

fictitious brand as used by Brown and Dacin, (1997), and Bickart and Ruth (2012). We selected

the name "Petra" for the car presented in order to respond to the realities of the market. Currently,

several manufacturers use people’s names for their new cars. For example, Renault chose

Megane or Zoe.

The advertisement designed includes:

•A title specifying the name of the car: Petra,

•Information about the product. More specifically, we have mobilized information on the

environmental performance,

•Two images: The car and an eco-label. In fact, car manufacturers use various communication

tools in the field of ecology. Among these tools, we have ecological auto-labels. These auto-

labels certify that cars have a lesser impact on the environment and an aptitude for use at least

equivalent to that of other conventional models.

This advertisement is then declined depending on whether or not the experimental condition is

present. An example is displayed in figure 2.

Figure 2: Ad with green color vs. Ad without green color

3.1.Pretest

In order to ensure on the one hand that the designed advertisements are understandable and on the

other hand that the factors manipulated were well mobilized, we carried out a pre-test with

consumers and professionals in the field of advertising. The characteristics of the manipulated

message require checking whether it is: 1) guilty; 2) exaggerated; and 3) consistent with the

visual. For the survey with consumers, the collection of consumer data was carried out in Paris

during the month of August 2015. We have targeted people who may be interested in

environmental issues. For this reason, the chosen place was in front of the store HACEA, a

specialized shop of ecological products. A total of six questionnaires were administered as part of

the pre-test: "questionnaire with the non-guilty message", "questionnaire with the guilty message

", "questionnaire with unexaggerated advertising", "questionnaire with exaggerated advertising",

"questionnaire with unambiguous advertising" and "questionnaire with ambiguous advertising".

The six questionnaires have the same architecture in terms of instructions and questions with an

exception that the experimental announcement presented to the subject differs from one

questionnaire to another. The results of the pre-test confirm that our designed advertisements

respond to the research’s objectives. The interviews with 63 consumers were carried out face-to-

face and their duration was about fifteen minutes.

The collection of data from the experts was carried out in the same month. A questionnaire was

sent by email to 25 professionals in the field of environmental communication and 11 of them

accepted to answer to our survey.

3.2.Sample

In order to have a diversified sample of consumers in terms of degrees of environmental concern,

we decided to follow the approach of McDonald and Adam (2003): 1) to spread the survey

throughout the day; (2) changing neighborhoods every day; (3) interrogate every day of the week

and 4) change the street every two hours. The principle implies that all individuals (concerned

and not concerned with the environment) must have, at best, the same likelihood of being part of

our sample. To ensure this diversity in sampling, we also respect quotas in terms of sex (Burton

et al., 1999), age (Burton et al., 1999) and CSP (Darpy and Volle, 2003). The survey was

conducted in Strasbourg, France between September and December 2015 and allowed 520

consumers to be interviewed face-to-face.

The subjects were invited at the beginning of the experiment to answer a series of general

questions, on the resistance to advertising and on the degree of their environmental concern.

Secondly, the following questions concern the evaluation of environmental advertising in general

and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. The third set of questions is more specific

and concerns the evaluation of the environmental advertising tested in the questionnaire as well

as the perception of the ecological image of the product presented in the advertisements created.

Finally, we asked questions about the sociodemographic characteristics of consumers: age,

gender, level of education and profession.

4. Results

The measuring scales used are all from the existing literature. All measuring scales used had

good reliability with an alpha of Cronbach greater than or equal to 0.8 Comparisons show that

subjects who visualized ad green-colored advertisement are more positively evaluating

environmental advertising (F=1,676; p<0.001) and perceive more favorably the ecological image

of the promoted product (F=2,748; p<0.001) than those who visualized an advertisement with

green color. Thus, environmental advertising without green color is evaluated and perceived

more positively by consumers than advertising with green color. These results allow us to

validate the hypotheses H1 and H2;

The comparison of averages highlights positive perceptions and evaluations for environmental

advertisements without children as a character. Comparisons show that subjects exposed to an

advertisement without child evaluate more positively environmental advertising (F=43.212;

p<0.001) and perceive more favorably the ecological image of the promoted product (F=3.767;

p<0.001) than those exposed to an advertisement that portrays a child as a character. These

results lead us to validate the assumptions H3 and H4.

The between groups t-test indicate significant differences in advertising evaluation (F=10.776;

p<0.004) and perception of the advertiser’s ecological image (F=1.765; p<0.009). These results

show that the subjects are negatively evaluating and perceiving environmental advertisements

that use ambiguous visuals. On the other hand, they are positively evaluating and perceiving

advertisements using a coherent visual with the advertising discourse. These results lead to the

validation of the hypotheses H5 and H6.

A t-test was performed to compare the results between the two groups of subjects -subjects

exposed to a guilty message and subjects exposed to a non-guilty message-. We note that there

are no significant differences in the evaluation of environmental advertising (F=2,942; p<0.1) and

the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image (F=4,214; p<0.09). Thus, we can reject the

hypotheses H7 and H8.

The comparisons of averages show that subjects exposed to exaggerated advertisement more

negatively evaluate environmental advertisement (F=1.72; p<0.001) and perceive more adversely

the ecological image of the promoted product (F=1.104; p<0.001) than those exposed to an

advertisement engaging a non-exaggerated discourse. These results, therefore, allow for the

validation of the assumptions H9 and H10.

In order to test hypotheses about the use of the non-ecological channel by advertisers of

environmental advertising, we performed the T-test to evaluate the differences in averages

between two groups of subjects, a control group, and a test group. The comparison of averages

highlights evaluations (F=3,884; p<0.001) and perceptions (F=1.092; p<0.001) more positive for

environmental advertisements displayed on an environmentally friendly medium. These results

lead to the validation of the assumptions H11 and H12.

The comparisons of results between the groups indicate significant differences in relation to the

evaluation of advertising (F=2.82; p<0.001) and the perception of the ecological image of the

advertiser (F=1.007; p<0.001). These results allow us the validation of the hypothesis H13 and

H14.

Other tests have been also conducted to examine the indirect effects of the moderated variables.

To test the effect of nominal variables (gender and age) on the evaluation of environmental

advertising and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image, ANOVA taking as the "age"

factor and the dependent variable "environmental advertising evaluation" and another one taking

the "perception of the advertiser’s ecological image" as dependent variable, show that there is no

significant relationship between age classes and dependent variables (F=1.72; p>0.05; F=

1.315;p<0.249). These results allow us to validate the assumptions H15 and H16.

More ANOVA have been carried out. The analysis of variance shows no significant relationship

between gender and the evaluation of environmental advertising (F= 2.6; p<0.27), and the

advertising’s ecological image (F=3.851; p<0.36). These results allow us to validate the

assumptions H17 and H18.

Also, correlation analysis show that there is no significant relationship between environmental

concern and environmental advertising evaluation (r=-0.032; p=0.34) and the perception of the

advertiser’s ecological image (r=0.033; p>0.05). These results allow us to validate the

assumptions H19 and H20.

The correlation between the two variables resistance to advertising and the evaluation of

advertising is estimated by the correlation of Pearson. Both constructed are significantly

correlated (r =-0.217; p<0.001). Also, the tests of indirect effects based on a bootstrap analysis

show that resistance to advertising has a significant moderating effect on the link between each

independent variable and the evaluation of environmental advertising. The "Spotlight" analyses

conducted at the level of resistance to advertising indicate significant differences so that the more

individuals are resistant to advertising in general, the more they evaluate negatively the different

experimental advertising stimuli. Also, the Pearson correlation coefficient between resistance to

advertising and the perception of the advertiser’s ecological image is r = 0.268 (p < 0.001). The

two constructed are thus significantly correlated. These results allow us to validate the

assumptions H21 and H22.

5. Discussion

The results highlight the negative effect of the use of green color in environmental advertising.

We found out that environmental advertisements with the dominance of green color are evaluated

negatively by individuals. Previous work has shown the effect of color in general on consumer

perceptions (Holbrook and Hermna, 1980; Lichtlé, 1998; 2002; Kacha, 2009). In the case of

green color, this influence is all the more notable, as it reflects a unanimous, non-culturally-

dependent representation (Benoit-Moreau et al., 2010), by analogy with the green dominant

nature, the "green" products and the "green" consumers. The green color is an almost universal

symbol of ecological character but it is today associated with the phenomenon of greenwashing

(Benoit-Moreau et al., 2010). For consumers, brands use green color to mislead consumers about

the real ecological quality of the product (Benoit-Moreau et al., 2010).

Our results are in the same direction as the previous literature (Burke, 1978; Holbrook and

Lehman, 1980; Stewart and Furse, 1986; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) that emphasized the

important effect of characters in advertisements on consumer attitudes, perceptions, and

behaviors in the face of advertising. These studies have shown that the characters in the

advertisement reflect the product and the brand and that they have an impact on the image of the

brand and on the message that it wants to send to consumers. Our results show that consumers are

negatively evaluating the use of children in environmental advertisements.

Since the advent of advertising in the nineteenth century, the advertising discourse was the

subject of criticism. The same criticisms (lack of sincerity, ambiguity, etc.) have been made to the

environmental advertising discourse. Some advertising messages have led the consumer to be

wary of environmental advertising and the company (Alniacik and Yilmaz, 2012). The results of

our research indicate that exaggerated environmental claims are assessed and perceived

negatively by consumers. 100% ecological, 100% natural, CO2-free, and other hard-hitting

expressions are put forward to attract the attention of consumers. But these exaggerated pro-

environmental slogans are perceived negatively by individuals. The ecological image of the

product also suffers and ends up feeding a less favorable attitude towards it. According to

Jacques (2006), consumers reject certain environmental advertising messages because they see in

these speeches false elements that exaggerate the values of the company. Many brands are trying

to exaggerate the ecological interest of a product or even create a responsible image of all parts

(Chan, 2004). However, these brands at the origin of exaggerated communication expose

themselves to a significant risk in terms of reputation (Delmas and Burbano, (2011) and also

contribute to eco-confusion and eco-skepticism in the minds of consumers (Bourg, 2010), who

have trouble distinguishing the sincere advertising message from the fake. Thus,

our results support the research that have mobilized the signaling theory as they emphasize the

importance of launching a credible environmental discourse in order to provide evidence to

believe an advertisement.

Guilty environmental advertisements were evaluated and viewed positively by the subjects. Guilt

according to Haidt (2003) is part of self-conscious emotions, those that allow individuals to

regulate their actions. According to Ademe’s reports (2013, 2014), consumers are increasingly

aware of the importance of the environment and have an ecological sensitivity to the dangers that

threaten it. This has led individuals not only to take ownership of their environment and act as

responsible consumers but also to blame themselves for rehabilitating the natural environment

(Rodhain and Fallery, 2010). Also, our results do not reinforce those of Monot and Renniou

(2013) which suggest that consumers are indignant about the stigma of their behavior towards the

environment and the guilt of speech.

The results confirm the importance of using an ecological communication medium so that the

advertising message is positively evaluated by consumers. Our results show that consumers

perceive the environmentally friendly communication medium more positively than non-

ecological medium. It seems obvious that the use of non-ecological communication medium

degrades the different perceptions of the consumer and taints the company’s environmental

image. Tochtermann and Schmutz (2003) state that the used medium by the advertiser must be

compatible with the content of the advertisement. The compatibility between the channel and the

environmental discourse encourages companies communicating about the environmental qualities

of their products to question the environmental impacts of the chosen media. These conclusions

are in line with studies carried out by Ademe (2007) and Poivre-Lohé (2015), which stressed the

importance of integrating environmental concerns into the design and implementation of

communication actions.

According to the results obtained, it appears that the environmental advertisements launched by

associations are perceived in a more positive way than those issued by the companies. The

consumer is in fact increasingly wary of the environmental practices of companies (Do Paço and

Reis, 2012). In fact, these results are in the same direction as the findings of several previous

research (Baddache, 2004; Commenne, 2006) which underline the importance of forging a

partnership between companies and associations. This partnership makes it possible to launch a

more credible and legitimate environmental advertisement. The brands have a vested interest in

integrating the associations into their policies to establish the legitimacy of the decisions taken

and avoid the challenge. Associations can provide their expertise in addition to their lobbying and

pressure. Our results do not reinforce those of Montoro-Rios et al. (2008) which have shown that

environmental advertisements issued by environmental associations do not improve the attitudes

and environmental behavior of the consumer. It should be noted that non-governmental

organizations are criticized today, particularly because of dubious alliances with oil and mining

groups that are among the generous donors of these organizations. For example, American

journalist Christine MacDonald criticized several advertisements by partner companies of non-

governmental organizations. The latter would make it possible to green the image of companies

at a low cost by associating the logo of the association.

We also note the lack of a moderating role of personal characteristics on the influence of the

relationship between the elements of environmental advertising and the evaluation and perception

of individuals. This joins the results of Do Paço and Reis (2012) which indicate that there is no

significant difference between women and men in the responses to environmental advertising.

Our results are consistent also with those of Boyer (2006) that show that age does not have a

significant effect on the negative evaluation of advertising. According to our studies, evaluation

and perception of environmental advertising do not vary with the level of environmental concern

of individuals. To date, there is no explanation for such a phenomenon, especially that previous

works had revealed the influence of environmental concern on consumer reactions to

environmental advertising (Mars and Menivelle, 2012; Do Paço and Reis, 2012; Richards, 2013).

Conclusion

Our research contributes to a better understanding of the reasons for the negative evaluation of en

vironmental advertising and the negative perception of the advertiser’s ecological image. The res

ults provide insight into new elements in advertisements that can be criticized by consumers, suc

h as the use of non-ecological communication medium, the use of children’s images and ambiguo

us images in environmental advertisements. Our research aims to examine the effects of all eleme

nts of environmental advertising on consumer evaluation and perception. Although the studies ha

ve done so far focus on the study of the effect of the content or the form of advertising, we wante

d to underline the effects of all elements of advertising. This confronts the recommendations of se

veral authors (Burton and Lichtenstein, 1988; Wells, 1997) suggesting that the evaluation of an a

dvertising campaign should focus on its entirety, not on elements taken separately. In addition, it

was shown several times in academic works (Batra and Ray, 1986; Burton and Lichtenstein; 198

8; Droulers and Amar, 2014) that the different elements of advertising have an influence on cogni

tive evaluation (informative, convincing, persuasive, etc.) and on the emotional evaluations arous

ed by advertising. However, to our knowledge, no work has been done on the emotional evaluatio

ns of environmental advertising. In our research, we measured the evaluations elicited by experim

ental advertising stimuli using the Burton and Lichtenstein scale (1988), to measure cognitive and

emotional evaluation of advertising.

In addition, we have been able to establish findings of the effects of a child used as a character in

advertisements on consumer attitudes and perceptions. According to the literature, previous acade

mic works did not seem to be sufficiently strong to find out about these effects. Our empirical stu

dies have shown that consumers are negatively evaluating advertisements featuring children as a

character.

Our results also offer new insights into the exploration of the impact of guilty discourse on consu

mer’s evaluation. Indeed, previous research analyzing guilt has shown that it is unnecessary to sti

mulate the guilt of the consumer, as this would not achieve the desired behavior (De Peyrelongue,

2011; Monot and Reniou, 2013). In contrast, our results have highlighted a positive effect of guil

t on consumer perceptions of advertising and the ecological image of the product. Thus, this work

brings a new contribution to the fields of research on guilt and advertising.

In addition, although literature highlights the effect of age on consumer’s evaluation and percepti

on towards advertising, our results indicate the absence of negative effects on the perceptions of i

ndividuals. The fact that we are not the first to challenge these effects (Boush et al., 1994; Oberm

iller and Spangenberg, 1998) leads to seriously questioning the postulates of literature.

According to the results of our experimental study, the positive evaluation of a green advertiseme

nt is linked to the medium used by the company. The company must use an ecological communic

ation medium to consolidate the image of a responsible brand. The communication campaign mu

st, therefore, be totally eco-designed. The Biocoop campaign in France is one of the fully eco-des

igned campaigns. The organic product brand reaffirms its ecological commitments, presenting a f

ilm, 5 visuals and a website materializing its values. Every detail in this campaign was thought to

be as responsible as possible.

In addition, based on the results obtained, consumers perceive associations more positively than b

usinesses. It is thus necessary for companies to establish partnerships with non-governmental org

anizations. These partnerships allow businesses to be perceived in a legitimate way. Also, this wo

rk identified errors to avoid when developing an environmental communication strategy: the amb

iguity, the green color, the exaggeration, and the lack of evidence of the messages. To avoid these

pitfalls, it is important that the images used in the advertisements support and illustrate the speec

hes and do not present any ambiguity in relation to each other. In this sense, the images mobilize

d must be used in a proportionate way to the environmental claim and should not mislead the con

sumer about the environmental qualities of the product and the company. Advertisers should not

abuse green color in environmental posters so that the consumer is more inclined to believe the c

ommercial discourse. The advantage of the product must also be presented as such without exagg

erating the ecological scope. Claims relating to the environmental benefits of the product must be

supported by reliable scientific evidence and concrete justifications. Labels and detailed and tang

ible information can provide consumers with indisputable evidence.

This study has some limitations. First, executives, students, and employees are particularly over-r

epresented in the sample. While workers and inactive people in general (job seekers, retirees, hou

sewives) are significantly underrepresented. Also, the sample is mainly made up of highly-educat

ed individuals, while more than 70% of the French population has a lower level of education than

the BAC (INSEE, 2015). Individuals in excess of 60 are also underrepresented in the sample, wh

ile they represent INSEE 18.4% of the French population (INSEE, 2015). Thus, further research s

hould mobilize a more representative sample. Second, the cultural variable might be interesting to

study because environmental advertisements can be perceived differently depending on the origi

n of consumers (Leonidou et al., 2011). A replication of this study on subjects from different cult

ures could also be interesting. Finally, the study examines the variable of the source of environme

ntal advertising only in the form of two modalities: advertising by the company and another by as

sociation. Experimentation with other sources such as government agencies should be replicated.

References

Alniacik, U., & Yilmaz, C. (2012). The effectiveness of green advertising: influences of claim

specificity, product's environmental relevance and consumers' pro-environmental orientation.

Economic interferences, 14(31), 207-222.

Alwitt, L. F., & Prabhaker, P. R. (1992). Functional and belief dimensions of attitudes to

television advertising: Implications for copytesting. Journal of advertising research.

Anand, B. N., & Shachar, R. (2009). Targeted advertising as a signal. Quantitative marketing and

economics, n°7(3), p.237-266.

Anderson, R. E., & Jolson, M. A. (1980). Technical wording in advertising: implications for

market segmentation. The Journal of Marketing, 57-66.

Bailey, A. A., Mishra, A., & Tiamiyu, M. F. (2014). Green advertising receptivity: An initial

scale development process. Journal of Marketing Communications, (24), 1-19.

Banerjee, S., Gulas, C. S., & Iyer, E. (1995). Shades of green: a multidimensional analysis of

environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21-31.

Benoît-Moreau, F., Larceneux, F., & Parguel, B. (2010). L'oiseau rend-il la marque plus écolo ?

Une analyse des éléments d'exécution substantifs et associatifs en cas de greenwashing

publicitaire. Actes de l'AFM. Le Mans, 14-15 Mai.

Benoît-Moreau, F., Parguel, B., & Larceneux, F. (2009). Comment prévenir le" greenwashing"?

L'influence des éléments d'exécution publicitaire. Management: Tensions d'aujourd'hui, 365-376.

Bereni, D. (2004). Le comportement du consommateur face à la communication

environnementale. Actes des 9es journées de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne, Dijon, 1-

32.

Bernard, F. (2008). Questionner de nouveaux enjeux symboliques pour les organisations : la

communication environnementale et la « communication responsable ». Batazzi C. & Masoni-

Lacroix C. Communication, Organisation Symboles, MEI, (29).

Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. M. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising

and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of consumer research, 165-175.

Boyer, J. (2006). Le scepticisme du consommateur face à la publicité : modèle intégrateur et

effets du signal" satisfait ou remboursé », (thèse doctorale, université de Grenoble 2).

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and

consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68-84.

Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (1998). Reliability and credibility of young children's

reports: From research to policy and practice. American Psychologist, 53(2), 136.

Burton, S., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1988). The effect of ad claims and ad context on attitude

toward the advertisement. Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 3-11.

Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D. R., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1999). Exposure to sales flyers and

increased purchases in retail supermarkets. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(5), 7-15.

Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental advertising

claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of advertising, 22(3), 27-39.

Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental advertising

claims: A matrix method approach. Journal of advertising, 22(3), 27-39.

Chauveau, A., & Rosé, J. J. (2003). L‘entreprise responsable. Paris, Editions organisations.

Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2006). Marketing research: methodological foundations. New

York : Dryden Press.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review

and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.

Darpy, D. et Volle P. (2003), Comportements du consommateur. Concepts et outils, Paris,

Dunod.

Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management

Review, 54(1), 64-87.

Derbaix, C. (1982). L'enfant, la communication publicitaire et la hiérarchie des effets. Revue

Française du Marketing, (89), 31-48.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-

demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an

empirical investigation. Journal of Business research, 56(6), 465-480.

Do Paço, A. M. F., & Reis, R. (2012). Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising.

Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 147-155.

D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of environmental beliefs and its

impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green

purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(2), 69-78.

Edell, J. A., & Burke, M. C. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects.

Journal of Consumer research, 421-433.

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of consumer

Psychology, 7(2), 131-157.

Furlow, N. E. (2010). Greenwashing in the new millennium. The Journal of Applied Business

and Economics, 10(6), 22.

Grunert, K. G. (1996). Automatic and strategic processes in advertising effects. The Journal of

Marketing, 88-101.

Guichard, N., & Grégory, P. (2000). Publicité télévisée et comportement de l'enfant. Economica.

Haefner, D. P. (1956). Some effects of guilt-arousing and fear-arousing persuasive

communications on opinion change. American Psychologist, 11(9).

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. Handbook of affective sciences, 11, 852-870.

Haytko, D. L., & Matulich, E. (2008). Green advertising and environmentally responsible

consumer behaviors: Linkages examined. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 1, 2.

Heil, O., & Robertson, T. S. (1991). Toward a theory of competitive market signaling: A research

agenda. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 403-418.

Henion, K. E. (1976). Ecological marketing. Grid.

Herault, S. (2012). Responsabilité sociale de l'entreprise et publicité. RIMHE : Revue

Interdisciplinaire Management, Homme & Entreprise, (1), 7-18.

Herrmann, R. O. (1993). The Tactics of Consumer Resistance: Group Action and Marketplace

Exit. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1).

Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer

responses to advertising. Journal of consumer research, 404-420.

Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer

responses to advertising. Journal of consumer research, 404-420.

Holbrook, M. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (1980). Form versus content in predicting Starch scores.

Journal of Advertising Research.

Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication

effectiveness. Public opinion quarterly, 15(4), 635-650.

Jiménez, M., & Yang, K. C. (2008). How guilt level affects green advertising effectiveness?

Journal of creative communications, 3(3), 231-254.

Kacha, M. (2009). La couleur, variable d'action marketing (thèse doctorale, Nancy 2).

Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: The case of air

pollution. The Journal of Marketing, 61-65.

Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1973). The effect of ecological concern on brand perceptions.

Journal of Marketing Research, 191-197.

Kinnear, T. C., Taylor, J. R., & Ahmed, S. A. (1974). Ecologically concerned consumers: who

are they? The Journal of Marketing, 20-24.

Kirmani, A. (1997). Advertising repetition as a signal of quality: If it's advertised so much,

something must be wrong. Journal of advertising, n°26(3), p.77-86.

Ladwein, R. (1999). Le comportement du consommateur et de l'acheteur. Paris: Economica.

Leonidou C.N., & Leonidou L. C. (2011). Research into environmental marketing/management:

a bibliographic analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 68-103.

Lichtlé, M. C. (2002). Étude expérimentale de l'impact de la couleur d'une annonce publicitaire

sur l'attitude envers l'annonce. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 17(2), 23-39.

Maresca, B., & Hebel, P. (1999). L'environnement : Ce qu'en disent les Français. La

Documentation Française.

Mars, M.C., &. Menvielle, L. (2012). L‘influence du contenu du message publicitaire et des

caractéristiques motivationnelles sur les réponses du consommateur aux publicités vertes.

International Marketing Trends Conference, Paris, 20-22 January.

McDonald, H., & Adam, S. (2003). A comparison of online and postal data collection methods in

marketing research. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(2), 85-95.

Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males' and females'

processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 63-70.

Monot, E., & Reniou, F (2013), « « Ras le bol d'entendre parler d’écologie !» : comprendre la

contestation des discours écologiques par les consommateurs ». Décisions Marketing, 71, 93-109.

Montoro-Rios, F. J., Luque-Martínez, T., & Rodríguez-Molina, M. A. (2008). How green should

you be: Can environmental associations enhance brand performance? Journal of Advertising

Research, 48(4), 547-563.

Moser, H. R., & Reed, L. F. (1998). An empirical analysis of consumers' attitudes toward

optometrist advertising. Health marketing quarterly, 15(3), 45-59.

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer

skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7(2), 159-186.

Pantin-Sohier G., Brée J. (2004), L‘influence de la couleur du produit sur la perception des traits

de personnalité de la marque. Revue Française de Marketing, 196.

Peattie, K., & Crane, A. (2005), « Green marketing: legend, myth, farce or prophesy? »

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(4), 357-370.

Pecheux, C., & Derbaix, C. (1999). Children and attitude toward the brand: A new measurement

scale. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 19-19.

Peñaloza, L., &Price, L. L (1993). Consumer resistance: a conceptual overview. Advances in

consumer research, 20(1), 123-128.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1-24).

Springer New York.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1-24).

Springer New York.

Philippe D., & Durand R. (2009). Communication environnementale et réputation de

l'organisation. Revue Française de gestion, n°4, p.45-63

Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Zhang, J. (2007). Optimal feature advertising design under competitive

clutter. Management Science, 53(11), 1815-1828.

Poivre-Le Lohé, Y. (2015). À la recherche du juste degré de transparence. La communication

transparente : L'impératif de la transparence dans le discours des organisations, 313.

Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five

decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.

Prakash, A. (2002). Green marketing, public policy and managerial strategies. Business strategy

and the environment, 11(5), 285-297.

Pranee, C. (2010). Marketing Ethical Implication and Social Responsibility. International

Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2 (3), 6-21.

Richards, L. (2013). Examining Green Advertising and Its Impact on Consumer Skepticism and

Purchasing Patterns. Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 4(2).

Ritson, M., & Dobscha, S. (1999). Marketing heretics: resistance is/is not futile. Advances in

consumer research, 26, 159-159.

Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P., & Haefner, J. (1998). Public attitudes toward advertising: More favorable

than you might think. Journal of advertising research, 38(4), 7-22.

Sheehan, K., & Atkinson, L. (Eds.). (2016). Green Advertising and the Reluctant Consumer.

Routledge.

Srivastava, J., & Lurie, N. H. (2004). Price-matching guarantees as signals of low store prices:

survey and experimental evidence. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 117-128.

Stewart, D. W., & Furse, D. H. (1986). Effective television advertising: A study of 1000

commercials. Lexington Books.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy

of management review, 20(3), 571-610.

Sylvander, B. (2000). Les tendances de la consommation de produits biologiques en France et en

Europe : conséquences sur les perspectives d'évolution du secteur. Les Colloques de l'INRA, 193-

212.

Thomas, L, Shane, S., & Weigelt, K. (1998). An empirical examination of advertising as a signal

of product quality. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, n°37(4), p.415-430.

Tochtermann, K., & Schmutz, B. (2003). Support, ciblage et message publicitaire. Revue

Française du Marketing, (192/193), 159.

Wattenberg, M P., & Brians, C L Negative campaign advertising: Demobilizer or mobilizer?

American political science review, 1999, vol. 93, no 04, p. 891-899.

Wells, W. D. (1964). Recognition, recall, and rating scales. Journal of Advertising Research,

4(3), 2-8.

Winn, M. L., & Angell, L. C. (2000). Towards a process model of corporate greening.

Organization Studies, 21(6), 1119-1147.

Winn, M. L., & Angell, L. C. (2000). Towards a process model of corporate greening.

Organization Studies, 21(6), 1119-1147.

Zaiem, I. (2005). Le comportement écologique du consommateur. La revue des sciences de

gestion, (4), 75-88.

Zinkhan, G. M., & Carlson, L. (1995). Green advertising and the reluctant consumer. Journal of

Advertising, 24(2), 1-6.